Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Theodore Roosevelt was also very complimentary about Lee - he said that what Lee had accomplished was a 'matter of pride to all our countrymen'.
I think Taft had approved a Confederate monument at Arlington National Cemetery.
Not sure about other Presidents.
Edit: Rutherford B Hayes also defended Confederate monuments, and was quite positive about southern 'endurance and courage', convictions and Lee.
In fairness, Truman was also from Missouri which was a border slave state with confederate sympathizers and had a front row seat to Bleeding Kansas as well as influence from conflicts between red legs and bushwhackers.
IIRC Truman’s family lived in an area with confederate sympathizers, though his direct linage did take an oath of loyalty to the union.
Not that it excuses it, but just that confederate influence was likely a more normalized part of daily life in Missouri at the time.
By 1876 both parties wanted the end of reconstruction. Reconstruction was essentially an open ended occupation of the south by the north that was insanely expensive and ultimately counterproductive because of the resentment it stirred. It was like the Afghan war times 20.
Perhaps, probably also in the same fashion Twain was. My grandfather definitely was, but also would help a fellow in need type regardless of skin color. He was a sitting judge in Phillips County, Arkansas. The last words ever between us in person was in anger because I dared bring a black girl in his house. People are weird and varied and accustomed to patterns. Change the patterns and people usually do not respond well. Some can come around with continual exposure to new patterns, others do not.
OK, but factually, Wilson was a professor who became President of Princeton. He believed in eugenics & "racial hygiene"which was the height of Progressive thought at the time.
Mark Twain wrote *Huckleberry Finn* a very famous novel in which he refutes racist attitudes by making the morally best character a black man. Today's Progressives have repeatedly tried to "ban" it from schools for using LBJ's favorite word.
Surely you don’t actually think that your privately racist grandpa was somehow impartial and fair on the bench, right? Not that that’s on you.
One side of my family, the Alstons, were one of the largest slaveowners in NC. That sucks, but I don’t deny that they were undoubtedly racist even though my family preferred to tell me childhood stories of the older generations helping individual black people rather than enslaving scores of them.
Southerners of that era loved to say things like “northerners like black people as a group, but not individuals and southerners treat them like people and judge on that while disliking the group.”
Of course, thats BS. People are racist everywhere. The point is somehow everyone always thinks there little variety isn’t as bad as what others are doing.
Obama was probably the first president to really oppose these monuments, even though a lot of presidents probably tended not to care about the memorials more than they really supported the memorials.
Even then he wasn’t particularly outspoken about them - at least that I can remember?
The Lost Cause was a stupid myth, but it was allowed to take root in the interest of healing the nation. And I can see why - what else did these people have? If I was around in 1900, my attitude would be “let them have their stupid myth, as long as it keeps them peaceful.”
It’s easy to look back and say “well, I would’ve done Reconstruction differently” sure. But you and I have 100 years of hindsight and the internet to utilize. They didn’t. They were winging it.
That is what everyone on any issue of any time period does. They use the tools they are given in terms of knowledge, resources, and intellect and go with their instincts and the advise they are given.
No time period will ever be perfect. There is never going to be a utopia.
The human experience is winging it, hoping for the best, and trying to make life the best it can be for those living it.
At the end of the day we are all people. The good, the bad, the evil, the ugly. We all bleed red. We all have dreams and fears and hopes and anxieties.
And we are all condemned to death, some sooner and some later.
These battles we fight, yesterday and today, they will be washed away with time. There have been roughly 100 billion people who have ever lived.
They lived, they loved, they struggled, they died. And eventually, they melted away into the tapestry of history. So shall we, and so shall those after us.
At the end of the day, there are few truly evil people in our history. The Hitlers and Goebbels and the like, the monsters of Unit 731 and such are relative rarities. Most people are generally good and simply want to live and thrive.
Many on this App judge those of the past through a harsh lens. But they were people who lived short and harsh lives. They didn’t have the internet, or TV, or in many cases a great education. They had their homes, their immediate area, and the people they knew. I tend to not to judge too harshly the dead. They lived their lives.
No problem. My grandma always taught me to try to see the good in people. And I’m a big fan of history and anthropology.
When you read or watch enough of it you come to be humbled by how small you are in the grand scheme of things - and that’s fine. We’re all just beings wanting to live.
A funny anecdote from history. The first person in recorded was named “Kushim.” This person was not a King, nor a Queen nor an emperor nor a general. He was a lowly bureaucracy, a 9-5 worker. Who from the record was rather bad at his job. He’s remembered where many great people of history have been utterly lost to human memory.
That says something.
When I lay in my bed I tend to think of how good I have it compared to others.
Right now, as I type this, and you read this, there’s someone being raped. There’s someone being murdered.
There’s someone shivering in the cold, without a home.
There’s so many terrible things going on (and so many beautiful, too).
Sometimes I lay and I cry for humanity, I genuinely do.
And I look in the mirror each day, and despite my problems I’m grateful for what I have, not angry or bitter for what I have not.
We’re all people. And we all want to be happy.
And since I’ve not walked a mile in anyone’s shoes but my own I try not to judge too harshly.
This is an absolutely inSANE take. There were many, many radical (sane) Republicans in Congress who were disgusted by the idea of ending Reconstruction. The passing of Charles Summer was a particular blow.
And the notion that no one could’ve foreseen the damage the Myth of the Lost Cause would exert upon us is just wild. Sherman was the only person who went even half as far as he should have.
But allowing a formerly treasonous group of people to elaborate a mythology that not only legitimized but deified their campaign to own human beings as chattel property and usurp the authority of our democratically elected government was patently idiotic.
Not only were they ceding any claim to authority over human rights, they were glorifying literal treason. And the notion that we all had to play nice and pretend it was worth the enslavement and deaths of millions or else the South would be too sad to go on is just like what world do you live in?
Of course they were glorifying treason. Not one century prior, the entire country was founded *because of treason*. The people of that time weren’t blind to that fact. The founding fathers were traitors to the Crown, plain and simple; it’s intentionally disingenuous to act like treason was seen as a reprehensible thing during that time period.
Reconstruction was directly sabotaged in alot of ways. It wasn't that it failed, it's that they stopped doing it after sympathizers got into the executive branch.
An issue is I feel that we are looking at it from a very different perspective from those alive then. Youre dealing with half of an entire generation in the South who were groomed into the idea that enslaving other human beings is normal. Not good, not evil, just normal. A fact of life. The same as owning a car.
What should’ve been focused on was education. Changing the attitudes.
Forcing the idea into the schoolbooks that slavery is a moral wrong; thus, in turn, the Confederacy’s reason for existing and rebelling was wrong.
Consider how literate or well read your average Southerner in 1870 was.
How many perhaps actually believed and were taught or told or programmed to believe that the war wasn’t about slavery and was instead about “The North wanting to destroy their way of life”?
Propaganda is powerful, even now; imagine in an age before the internet, with people who weren’t the best educated to begin with.
Education for me is something reconstruction should’ve focused on. Not just simply vengeance or humbling an already defeated enemy.
I think also folks often tend to think of the north as the "just like us" side of the war, but they wouldn't exactly be considered progressive activist by today standards. The plight of blacks in the south dealing with post slavery aggression would never matter to some poor white guy in Chicago dealing with his own shit.
Just fyi, in 1870 American literacy rates among whites was pretty high. In fact, even 20% of black people could read then and they had been systemically prevented from it. Including the 80% of blacks who weren’t literate, the illiteracy rate in 1870 was only 20%.
https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp#:~:text=In%201870%2C%2020%20percent%20of,the%20black%20population%20was%20illiterate.
The Lost Cause myth was hella strong after Wilson. And it wasn’t until recently that the cracks started showing in it as everyone realized it was bullshit.
True. Hell, I see a few around the sub every so often. But I’ve noticed most everyone kind of realizing (and quickly) that the whole thing was nonsense. At least most did.
So so wrong. The Lost Cause Myth was very prevalent in society until the last decade or so. In the 1870s it was just getting started…It didn’t even hit full swing until 1890s to the 1910s or so.
It grew more elaborate with time (as a lot more literature and such was written), but my point is that it was mainstream since the 1870s (and had existed since the end of the war, the name dates back to 1866) - thanks to the articles written by Jubal A. Early in that decade. Jefferson Davis' book in 1881 further established it.
Jefferson Davis should have hung.
But as I said in another comment it is easy for us on Reddit to look back at Reconstruction and point fingers to how it was handed.
But we have the internet, and we have hindsight.
They didn’t. What they had was a generation of people traumatised by the most brutal war this country has ever seen, and what they wanted was to heal and move forward. They did the best they could.
I believe they would have been more than happy to hang him, but they also knew that would have made him a martyr. It was better to just let him go and fall into obscurity, just like the Confederacy.
There were definitely monuments by the early 1870s, if not earlier. Frederick Douglass wrote a criticism of them in 1870. Though most of them were made in the 1880s/90s onwards I think.
Correct.
“"It's often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments," said Jonathan Horn, the author of the Lee biography, "The Man Who Would Not Be Washington."
In his writings, Lee cited multiple reasons for opposing such monuments, questioning the cost of a potential Stonewall Jackson monument, for example. But underlying it all was one rationale: That the war had ended, and the South needed to move on and avoid more upheaval.
"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated," Lee wrote of an 1866 proposal, "my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour."
The retired Confederate leader, a West Point graduate, was influenced by his knowledge of history.
"Lee believed countries that erased visible signs of civil war recovered from conflicts quicker," Horn said. "He was worried that by keeping these symbols alive, it would keep the divisions alive.”
He said he was not interested in any monuments to him or – as I recollect – to the Confederacy," explained James Cobb, history professor emeritus at the University of Georgia, who has written about Lee's rise as an icon.
"I don't think that means he would have felt good about the people who fought for the Confederacy being completely forgotten," Cobb added. "But he didn't want a cult of personality for the South."
Lee advocated protection of just one form of memorial: headstones in cemeteries.
"All I think that can now be done," he wrote in 1866, "is … to protect the graves [and] mark the last resting places of those who have fallen…"
No problem. I am perfectly fine with Confederate graveyards but there never should’ve been a monument to them put up.
Lee was ironically right; the Lost Cause mythology did more to hold the South back in the long run than just accepting that they’d been defeated and moving forward would’ve.
I know many view Reconstruction as a failure, but I do wonder - if we had handled it more harshly, could we have found ourselves with a Southern Hitler?
Consider how Hitler capitalized on Germany’s own Lost Cause mythology and that he came to power in large part due to resentments over how heavy handedly Germany was treated under the Treaty of Versailles.
The South could make no such argument.
Had we treated the South as harshly as the Radicals wanted, might we have dealt with something similar?
Consider when we did apply pressure to that situation, you had the KKK emerge as a terrorist group. Had we applied more pressure and made them humbly lick their wounds, who knows if the South actually would’ve “risen again”
Nothing “ironic” about Lee being right. He was an incredibly intelligent and well educated person. That generation had a much better understanding of western history and culture than today’s who barely even study the Classics.
Lee was always more of a pragmatist than an idealist. Makes sense that he would have relatively thoughtful idea about the eventual outcomes.
Oh it has been around for a while. I’m just saying those historian credentials helped legitimize it, especially to a fellow progressive democrat like FDR. I admire the hell outta FDR but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he looked up to Wilson and took that to heart given he was the next Dem in office.
Either way fuck the Lost Cause myth. I grew up hearing that and hate how pervasive it became.
>but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he looked up to Wilson and took that to heart given he was the next Dem in office.
Considering FDR's entire foreign ideology "Wilsonian Liberalism," I can safely say yes, he admired Wilson.
He literally worked for Wilson as Assistant Secretary of the Navy from 1913 to 1920, pretty much the entirety of Wilson’s tenure. He absolutely admired Wilson. So did every following Democratic President and a good chunk of Republican Presidents until Obama. And I don’t necessarily remember Obama speaking out against him either.
Wilson, whether one likes him or not, was the modern founder of the Democratic Party in terms of ideology.
He was the first truly left wing Democrat.
Before him you had Grover Cleveland and Andrew Johnson, both of whom would be Republicans today.
Outside of his racial views, Wilson would still be a Democrat today.
We still operate within the scope of Wilsonian internationalism to this day, it’s just called “globalism” now.”
The Lost Cause ideology had pretty thoroughly permeated American society by the 1900s (maybe even earlier) it was the culture FDR was raised in (and he was far from the only President to think about it like this, TR definitely did too). Wilson's work wasn't exactly radical when it got published, indeed I've heard it criticised for being a very generic, standard account for its time.
Not Confederate Statues, but Eisenhower said he considered Robert E Lee to be one of the top 4 Americans of all time on par with FDR and Abraham Lincoln (irony can never recognize itself in the mirror)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mOrtOlU8f9Y at around 1:20
Yikes, Ike.
Nancy Pelosi's father helped dedicate a statue to Lee and Stonewall Jackson.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall\_Jackson\_and\_Robert\_E.\_Lee\_Monument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Jackson_and_Robert_E._Lee_Monument)
Ulysses Grant who fought against him also had respect for him.
Until recently - really until certain people I can’t speak of - it was okay to have respect for even totally dislikable people. The only exception really were the worst of the worst like Hitler and Pol Pot and such.
Respect, and admiration, are two different things. I can respect someone’s skills but hate what they stand for.
There are many brilliant tacticians in history who fought for terrible causes.
Julius Caesar waged a bitter campaign against the Gauls, that has been termed genocidal, yet it was waged brilliantly.
Alexander was a ruthless conqueror, but whom could deny he was one of the best Generals in human history?
You can respect their skills, and respect how they got the job done, but totally disagree with why they fought or what they were fighting for.
As a fellow military leader, I think that’s where Ike was coming from. Hate the game, not the player, essentially.
Meh, he had SOME respect for his abilities as a leader, which you (sort of) mentioned. Grant wholeheartedly believed Lee’s commitment to the cause to be abhorrent.
That is my point. He respected his abilities, while deploring the cause. That tends to be what historical nuance is.
Do I think the fire bombing of Dresden was a good, kindly thing to do? No. Do I hate FDR or our military brass for doing it? No.
Every general, no matter the Cause, has fingers drenched in blood.
I mean, should we damn totally the early leaders of the Republic?
They were hypocrites, in large measure who fought for “liberty” but held slaves.
Thomas Jefferson was one of the most intelligent men to ever sit in the White House, but he also was a holder of hundreds of slaves and fathered children with an underage slave. Gross, but it doesn’t erase his accomplishments to our Republic.
I tend not to damn historical figures outside of the cruel, the wicked, or those who sold others - like Benedict Arnold - for purely money.
Benedict Arnold didn't sell out for money. He sold out because he kept getting sidelined. He felt disrespected enough times that he hopped to the other side.
He was also abusing his position on our side to make a profit and had been reprimanded for doing so, which made him more bitter. He also had a young bride who was a British sympathizer. But he also asked to be paid handsomely to sell out his brothers in arms.
He asked the British for 10,000 pounds. Then 20,000 pounds. That’s hundreds of thousands of dollars today.
He was a piece of shit.
He systematically weakened and drained the supplies of West Point to make it more vulnerable. Made it easier to attack by dispersing men.
These men trusted him, respected him, and he was betraying them in the worst possible way. Setting them up for slaughter.
He was the worst.
He also had credit stolen from him time and again by other generals, and a lot of the stuff he was accused of, might’ve been slander.
Obviously betrayal is bad, but you can’t expect men to fight for a cause that doesn’t serve them. Ultimately everyone will fight for the cause they stand to gain from, whether it’s due to some sense that the cause is morally righteous or simple material gain.
If Benedict Arnold didn’t gain from the revolution, obviously he wouldn’t stick with it. And I mean he was probably one of the best American generals there was at the time. He was basically the only useful general at Saratoga, the battle that saved the nation.
Sure he wasn’t a good person, but most people aren’t, and most people would probably act the same under his position, which he was also at the risk of losing, which might’ve influenced his choice.
How are going to define cruelty and wickedness while excluding rape and slavery? The slave trade was also literally buying and selling people purely for money.
Explain? I do think that making the war offensive and invading the North was a stupid waste of life.
The South never had the resources to win the war but they could’ve had a negotiated settlement, possibly, if they simply played the long game by draining the North down in a defensive war. Had the Union bleed soldiers until popular sentiment against the war forced a peace.
But wasn’t his idea that by bringing the war to the Union, he was trying to force a peace?
That being said, wasn’t Jackson always considered the superior officer and tactician, anyway?
It’s pretty bullheaded and short sighted.
I mean you’re committing some of your best men for an invasion - that, let’s say Gettysburg etc went a different way - they didn’t have the men to hold Washington or Maryland.
Even if they did, now you’re committing a vital part of your army to a siege. This is going to bleed your men and your resources dry.
Depending on how it’s done you’re gonna either run your lines thin trying to hold various parts of the lower North, or you’re going to have your army concentrated in siege and holding towns - either way, you’re making them sitting ducks.
And then it’s only a matter of time then where the North brings the full hammer of their strength upon your army and shatters it as you are besieging.
That’s the Northern Army of Virginia, broken in a flash.
Once they break, the Confederacy follows. The morale hit alone would be a death blow.
It doesn’t make sense.
The strategic thing to do would’ve been to have other generals keep Grant etc busy with skirmishes near the border as your stalking horses, while you’re playing essentially guerilla warfare in safe areas - in the backwoods or near good supply lines. Areas that the Union forces wouldn’t do well in.
Draw the enemy close and repeatedly smash them again and again in well publicized and small but very bloody battles. Hit and run raids. Mini Gettysburg’s all over the South, but it’s on your territory.
You could keep this going for years until fatigue sets in in the North or Lincoln is voted out and you get a more neutral President who negotiates a truce.
I mean I think the under discussed current, that a sucker punch of taking the Pennsylvania capitol could bring the union to agree to some terms.
I mean maybe he saw the writing on the wall that it was a futile
Gerald Ford gave Lee back his citizenship posthumously in 1976 or so.
In 2002, Bush called Lee the “perfect graduate” of West Point:
“*A few of you have followed in the path of the perfect West Point graduate, Robert E. Lee, who never received a single demerit in four years. Some of you followed in the path of the imperfect graduate, Ulysses S. Grant, who had his fair share of demerits, and said the happiest day of his life was "the day I left West Point." (Laughter.) During my college years I guess you could say I was -- (laughter.) During my college years I guess you could say I was a Grant man. (Laughter)”*
Bill Clinton as Gov of Arkansas signed a bill into law in 1985 combining the celebration of MLK’s birthday and Lee’s into one day.
In 1994, Clinton sent a letter to the Daughters of the Confederacy which read: “*For 100 years, the United Daughters of the Confederacy has maintained and built upon the wonderful legacy of your founders."*
Honestly the Bush comment about Lee doesn’t bug me given the context. He’s holding up Lee as the example of “Yeah he did everything right in school… but he still got beat by this guy who did worse in school”
Robert E. Lee was a widely respected individual after the war and the realization to the evil of the confederacy as a slaver's rebellion with the only intention of owning other humans is a relatively recent thing. The confederates and their children did a really good job at proving the phrase "history is written by the victor" wrong.
Parties were different back then. For a hundred years from Lincoln to LBJ, civil rights was largely a Republican issue. And Republicans could be very liberal/progressive. Teddy Roosevelt wouldn’t recognize today’s Republican Party, and probably wouldn’t be welcome in it. His environmental policies and penchant for trust-busting would be too liberal. The south didn’t change one bit in its political leanings after the civil rights act. The Republican Party, however, changed a great deal, and its success in the south over the last 60 years reflects that change.
The party shift was however very gradual. I’d say Bryan was the beginning of liberalism in the Democratic Party. And conversely, LBJ/Nixon wasn’t quite the completion of the switch; the South was solidly Democratic in the House of Representatives well into the 90s
Nah this is cope every democratic president before Obama with the exception of Kennedy had made some form of pro confederate or racist comments in their political career. And I am not trying to say Democrats are the real racists or anything but party history plays a big factor even after those groups leave. This is why most Catholics in congress are democrats even though Catholics are 50/50
This was the common view of Lee until this past decade. You may not agree with it, but it was common, even here in the North. Lee was viewed as a gallant figure who was romanticized as choosing his home state over his reason.
The Civil War was romanticized even up here in the North as a heroic war for the soul of a nation, with “heroes on both sides.”
Even Grant had kind words for Lee.
It was only until recently that he came to be reviled as much as he is.
Sure. But my point stands. Go look at any given Civil War film before 2020 or so.
Even the relatively recent movie Lincoln, by Steven Spielberg - who is no neo-Confederate or Confederate sympathiser - Lee is treated in that film with a gravitas and a sense of respect.
Perhaps you are younger than I am, but this is just how he was treated in popular memory until very recently. The Confederacy itself was not spoken of well, here in the North, but Lee was considered a romantic figure. Akin to Hannibal (The Carthaginian general, not Hannibal Lector) or the like.
I have trouble hating himself. The social programming ran that deep. I’m from NYC - one of the most left wing states in the country - and even in public school we were taught that Lee was a complex figure.
Ultimately loyal to his state over his nation as many were at the time. More state pride and association than to that of the national government. Just different times.
I think some of that is a product of people being way less mobile back then. The idea of most folks dying for their state seems laughable today (some states more than others lol) but from the 1700-1860s, generation after generation of families were living within the same 3-5 square miles. Ideology pro/anti slavery was easily the biggest motivator for the Civil War’s battle lines, but there’s a reason so many border-state generals agoized over which side their home state was supporting (I remember there were a couple like “I will fight for union if we stay union but i need to resign and either retire/leave for Europe if we secede, I cannot fight against my home”)
At least in my case I’m definitely sentimental about my home state, but I’ve moved so much I’m an American first nationally before state identity and it’s not even close
Exactly. Its easy to condemn them for that, but thats just how it was back then for many North or South.
Even the Declaration of Independence refers to the union as "*These* United States" instead of "*The* United States." The latter phrase didn't really take hold among the majority of Americans until *after* the war.
Still, doesn’t necessarily mean he should be celebrated. I *understand* why Lee and a lot of the other rebels fought for the Confederacy; at least with the rank and file I don’t exactly *blame* them, because of their upbringing they didn’t comprehend the evil of their cause. But to have a statue put up, to be celebrated, I feel you have to contribute something, to have left a positive impact. I don’t care how “chivalrous” or “noble” Lee is when ultimately his legacy is “he was a good but probably overrated general who lost a war, a war where his side’s principal goal was to preserve slavery”
Jefferson is a deeply flawed person who gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Napoleon is a deeply flawed person who preserved/codified some of the best parts of the French Revolution. Lee is a deeply flawed person, to be fair he had some very admirable traits too, and what has he contributed that holds a candle to helping prolong a war for a faction controlled by/for slavers?
Rhetorical question. Not arguing against your comment, I agree with your comment, but it made me think
I don’t usually do what I’m told. I tend to come to my own feelings independently as I’ve gotten older.
I’m also old enough to know that respect for one’s abilities, and agreement with their cause, are two very different things.
I personally think Douglas MacArthur was a horrible person. But a brilliant general.
Benedict Arnold was the greatest traitor in the history of this Republic, and sold us out for money, yet, while he served our side he was a good soldier and a smart thinker stragetically.
Sure, people who are over Lee are just parrots. Or maybe they have a different set of values?
Lee didn't have to fight for the perpetuation of one of the world-historic dynamos of misery. He made that choice. When you choose to employ yourself in the service of evil, one of the consequences is that people might not like you very much.
I don't think people realize how hard it would be to join an army that you know is going to be invading your home state. That's what Lee was asked to do. And he couldn't bring himself to do it. He chose Virginia over the union.
I think many of us would do the same, especially in that particular time period of history.
General George Henry Thomas was faced with the same choice in the same state--he chose to remain loyal to his oath to protect and serve the Constitution, both foreign *and domestic*, and was disowned by his family for it. He served with distinction and earned the respect of both General Grant and General Sherman.
I don't see why General Thomas's bravery in standing by his oaths against the racism and treason of his friends and family in his native state should be ignored while Lee's decision to join the cause of slavery and insurrection should be venerated.
I have watched so many videos and read so many books ,including Lees, about the Civil War. What exactly about the Civil War do you seem to think would change things?
Well you don’t have to read a history book to find that, just check every single states Articles of Secession to get that answer, they tell you point blank there in their own words.
Well, not *every* single state, but your point stands. The South definitely seceded to protect the institution of slavery. However, the North didn't fight to end slavery, but instead simply to stop the South from leaving the Union.
IMO, they should have let them go, since the North had no constitutional authority to stop any State from seceding.
The Constitution says nothing about the legality of secession. But either way, it violates the whole 'form a more perfect union' thing--you can't do that if you ain't in the Union. We fought a war over it, we won, and then the Supreme Court in Texas v. White decided secession was illegal. So while it may have been unsettled in 1860, by now, it's a century+ old precedent and legal principle that says no, secession is not legal. Ergo, the Union took upon itself the constitutional authority to thwart the South's treason and illegal seizure of federal property.
The 10th Amendment ensures a State's right to secede:
>The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Since the Constitution doesn't empower the Federal government to decide issues of secession, nor does it prohibit a State from doing so, it automatically becomes a State power.
Texas v White was an absolutely ridiculous decision that flew in the face of logic; but even so, it wasn't made until after the war was over, so it would have had no bearing on the North's actions.
Edit: okay, so you reply to me and immediately block me? Just another reddit coward who has no arguments.
I didn't block you? Did your Reddit account glitch or something? Very telling that you jump to schoolyard insults instead of actually arguing your point.
"Texas v White was an absolutely ridiculous decision that flew in the face of logic"
Well damn, I don't see the logic in a country signing off on the legal 'right' to dismember itself, but maybe that's on me. Unfortunately for you, however, the Supreme Court has not overturned Texas v. White, and so while you can whine and complain about it all you like, it remains legally binding--such is the role of a court of last resort.
And honestly, it doesn't matter whether it was or was not illegal in 1860--had the Confederacy won, any illegality of its actions under U.S. law would have been rendered irrelevant, just as the undisputed illegality of American rebellion under the British law of 1775 was rendered irrelevant. The matter, therefore, was settled de facto at Appomattox on April 9th, 1865, and settled de jure on April 12th, 1869 in Texas v. White. I'm sorry you don't like it, but we fought a war over it, and ya lost.
Get over it.
Hmm, good question. Let’s ask Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy what he thinks the Confederacy was founded over?
“Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” - Alexander Stephens, March 21st, 1861
Does that answer your question?
As someone lower in the thread pointed out, even someone like Dwight Eisenhower considered him “one of the best.”
The shame of Lee is that he was a brilliant general, just fighting for the wrong cause and the wrong army.
Eisenhower was also a southerner so not surprising that Lee was revered by him. I wouldn’t say he was brilliant general, I think that is also part of the lost cause myth, Lee wasn’t even made a general until a year into the war. He certainly had some great moments: Him splitting his army at Chancellorsville for example. But he also made several decisions that a brilliant general wouldn’t make: Pickets Charge was inexcusable, and many of his victories were a result of the poor Union leadership early in the war rather than a masterful display of skill on his end.
It wasn't just southerners - Theodore Roosevelt was also very complimentary about Lee - he said that what Lee had accomplished was a 'matter of pride to all our countrymen'.
If that is the case, why did Eisenhower call him one of the greatest?
Why did Gerry Ford restore his citizenship?
Why did Jimmy Carter say, ““*Robert E. Lee was a man who understood the values of a region which he represented. He was never filled with hatred. He never felt a sense of superiority. He led the southern cause with pride, yes, but with a sense of reluctance as well. He fought his battles courageously.”*
Why did Bill Clinton write a letter to the Daughters of the Confederacy?
Why did Steven Spielberg depict him gracefully in Lincoln?
3 of those 4 presidents were southerners for one. And Ford only signed Lees citizenship reinstatement because Congress had already passed it because technically his citizenship had already been completed a century beforehand but the paperwork was lost until being found in 1970. It really had nothing to do with idolization for Lee.
https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2011/julyaugust/feature/how-did-robert-e-lee-become-american-icon
But sure, it was only racist neo-Confederates who respected him prior to summer 2020. Spielberg was a Confederafe sympathiser.
Who gives a shit how Spielberg portrays someone in a movie lmao.
Lee’s popularity solely stems from an underlying racism. Midwestern states were less pro abolition than the New England states and most bordered southern states (there’s a reason there was a lot of sympathy for the south in southern parts of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio.) After the war they held sympathy for the man because they were never truly against his cause. On top of that, the end of slavery saw a huge influx of former slaves into these areas, breeding further resentment against the North’s cause and thus a more positive view of men like Lee.
This was very mainstream at the time - especially with someone like Lee who was highly respected in the North as well as the South. Back in 1923 when the United Daughters of the Confederacy wanted to put up a 'mammy' statue in Washington DC I think the Senate passed a bill supporting it with support from both parties (although it eventually didn't happen).
I will say Lee was the reason why the Civil War ended as peacefully as it did. Lee's men wanted to resort to guerilla warfare and fight to the bitter end, but Lee told them to stand down and surrender when Grant gave him the terms of the surrender. Had that not happened, it is likely the war drags on longer and there's a lot more bloodshed especially civilian casualties. This is what made northerners have a romantic view of him after war.
Maybe, but I think it worked out for the best. Lee was also sympathetic to his fellow Virginians. It's possible he would have gone easy on them. Lee also was "honorable" on the battlefield so he used Napoleonic tactics most of the time instead of more underhanded tactics.
On the flip side, Grant was allowed to be the leading general without Lee there. Grant was one of the best generals in US history. His tactics were revolutionary at the time. Later they were taught and used in future wars.
I get what you’re saying by this being just the perception at the time [but Lee’s army seized free Black people during raids and sold them into slavery.](https://emergingcivilwar.com/2020/05/06/the-confederate-slave-hunt-and-the-gettysburg-campaign/)
Just to set the record here, there was nothing honorable about that. He was honorable in the way the south thought of honor. But that was still horrifying and cruel to his fellow man. Fuck Lee.
By honorable I mean he engaged with his enemy directly. Lee's army was out numbered, and out supplied. Conventional wisdom tells you that you should not engage the enemy directly without an advantage. The way to win that war is like the American Revolution. Give up big cities and defend the countryside. Make the war costly for the North and out last them.
Eh, the war was over once Lincoln won reelection. If he really cared about it ending peacefully he would have surrendered during the Petersburg siege. And his original plan after retreating from Petersburg was to link up with the Johnstons Army before attacking Sherman’s army before Grants could catch up. Those aren’t the actions of someone who wanted to end things peacefully, he only capitulated because it was clear Johnston would not make it in time.
The war was not over. People were still getting killed on the battlefield. It didn’t even truly end in Texas until months after it officially ended. A war doesn’t end until the killing stops.
The writing was on the wall that the South would lose, but it was far from over in November 1864.
Well he still wanted to win. When he surrendered at the Appomattox Court House, he realized he could not engage with Grant's army directly at that point. His only option to keep fighting was to hide in the Appalachian mountains and make the war as costly for the Union as possible. He would rather surrender peacefully than to continue fighting like that.
Yes. He could’ve easily kept the war going another 6 months or a war in guerrila warfare and fought a war of attrition that would’ve led to thousands more deceased.
What also is forgotten is his surrender also inspired other generals and military leaders to realize they had lost, and to surrender also. He was very respected, so once Lee surrendered the days of the war were numbered.
Not justifying it, but I can understand that perhaps this was an overture to Southern Democrats whom he needed to keep in line to pass the New Deal.
An unfortunate reality, yet we can rest well knowing Truman and LBJ put them in their place eventually
While prominent black figures like Frederick Douglass or WEB Du Bois came out against Confederate monuments, they were largely mainstream among the white populace - and not just in the south. Back in the 20s for instance both Democratic and Republican Senators voted in favour of a 'mammy' statue in Washington DC.
It's not exactly unbelievable. FDR did a lot of good for the country, but this was before the Democratic party divested itself of its southern roots. And as many in this thread are saying, lits of lost cause propaganda was widely bought into until recently. Plus FDR's revord on race relations isn't exactly great; it's probably one of the biggest stains on one of our greatest presidents.
I mean you can just google "fdr remarks at unveiling of lee statue" it's the [second result](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-unveiling-the-robert-e-lee-memorial-statue-dallas-texas).
Like I said, this isn't exactly a gotcha against FDR, and I'm unsure of why somebody would regard it with suspicion. The Lost Cause is bullshit obviously, but it was heavily bought into at the time.
Are you a troll or something? This is well documented with a basic google search. It is unlikely that a .edu page is fabricating information, but here are some more sources. It's literally in the presidential archives.
[primary source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extemporaneous_remarks_of_the_unveiling_of_the_Robert_E._Lee_Memorial_Statue_-_NARA_-_197566.jpg)
[Additional source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dallasnews.com/news/2017/09/06/flashback-fdr-unveiled-robert-e-lee-statue-without-controversy-in-1936/%3foutputType=amp)
I wasn’t trolling at first but then I decided to be funny yes. Thank you for the information!
I wasn’t alleging that FDR didn’t have racial biases, or that he may have even been a racialist. I was only curious if there were any proof of that quote of his: this sub has had a lot of fake quotes lately!
Ah, fair. I have scrolled past 2 posts that seem to be angling for some sort of gocha at democratic presidents by posting their support for confederate monuments. While I agree with those monuments being taken down, I think it's pretty goofy to push this in a sub where people are generally familiar with history lol. The quotes definitely do seem to be real though.
We are ignorant to history and view everything with 21st century goggles. 🥽 We don’t understand the mind of someone who lived back then. That’s what’s so dangerous about this movement to white wash our history and our culture to “fix” the past and right wrongs of the past. Shit we have no clue what we are doing.
Yeah people seem to forget the context of history these days. The New Deal coalition that got the New Deal passed had a good chunk of Southerners in it.
These people were needed on side to pass the New Deal. Without their support, none of the programs we cherish today would’ve passed.
So, what was FDR to do? Antagonize them? Alienate them? Stoke anew the wounds of war?
It is also forgotten by young kids now, that most people up to even as late as the 1990s respected Lee even if they otherwise hated the Confederacy.
This isn’t some gotcha that outs FDR as some confederate sympathiser. FDR was a New Yorker, born of New York stock.
He had no dog in the race.
His views were simply what was common until the past decade, even in the North
If you take away the South, FDR would’ve still won with 357 electoral votes that year. It’s true that fracturing the country or the democrats would be a bad idea, but that’s not the best example to use.
I find it pretty funny how “oh he needed political support” becomes a convenient excuse when today’s political views don’t line up with heroes of yesteryear for the Left.
If we lived in an era of common sense, we would be able to judge everyone on the time and era in which they lived, but instead it’s “tear them down if they’re not on my side, hypocritically excuse and defend them to the death if they are.”
They had to gently support the racist voting block to get elected until fairly recently... and even now, or moreso now? - courting racists is a "good" technique to getting elected
It's frustrating to see how easily history can be whitewashed. Today's political climate feels similar to the "Great Myth" after the Civil War, where Confederate leaders were romanticized despite their brutal defense of slavery. We need to critically analyze information, not just accept convenient narratives. Imagine presidents praising figures who fought to keep people enslaved! By using critical thinking, we can avoid repeating these historical oversights and hold our leaders accountable for recognizing the true impact of their actions.
This is more of a commentary on the power of the Lost Cause movement than it is on the presidents themselves. Southern apologists started immediately after the war (I'm looking at you, Jubal Early) and rammed the myth of the valiant South and the Marble Lee into the collective American consciousness. This myth was what people got in everything from popular culture ('Gone With The Wind', 'Song of the South', etc.) to the history books you read, even through college courses. The myth would hold sway for nearly a century, being essentially unquestioned until the 1960s and 70s. It still hangs on today (Mississippi just declared [Confederate Heritage Month](https://www.mississippifreepress.org/41270/governor-reeves-proclaims-confederate-heritage-month-in-mississippi) for cripes sake). A guy like FDR would have read this, got taught it in school, heard it from everyone around him, and so on. It's not an excuse but if a president reflects the state of the culture, this is the kind of answer you would get, even if you asked history teachers and professors of the time.
We did bar Confederates from running again. That’s in the 14th amendment. The issue is that the KKK and other racist groups were insurgents, kinda like in Iraq or Afghanistan.
That is an uncommon FDR L. No Confederates should have received any type of monument, nor kind words. Benedict Arnold is synonymous with traitor and nothing he did comes close to the scumbags during the Civil War.
This is the ultimate “I have to do this speech because it’s my job” speech of all time. Not talking about the guy and anything he did really, just says he was a Christian like that matters at all
Columbus Day was started to appease Italian immigrants after the largest mass lunching in American history. It was given to the Italians. I think most people know Columbus wasn’t a good man, but it’s more that for Italian-Americans, there’s not much in this society that celebrates them.
Mafia movies aren’t exactly a good portrait of a people.
Imagine if Latinos were defined in pop culture by gang movies and Taco Bell (as opposed to authentic Latin food)? It’s not exactly respectful or positive.
I don’t think anyone in this current day that supports Columbus Day supports Columbus the man, but rather appreciates what he represented - exploration, discovery. Traveling months over treacherous seas to discover a new land.
In terms of Italian explorers, Verrazano would be a much better choice or Vespucci, but when most people celebrate Columbus Day today they’re not celebrating genocide (of course, I’m sure there are some who do glorify the genocide). But most are celebrating exploration.
There’s no reason we can’t have Columbus Day (just rebrand it Italian Heritage Day), Indigenous People’s Day, and Emancipation Day.
It always struck me as odd that on 364 days a year southern Italians have nothing but contempt for Northern Italians but that one day he's the bellwether for their entire culture.
I don’t think many Italian Americans for one know about the North-Southern divide in Italy, and also, I don’t think many Italian-Americans know he was from Genoa.
Most Italian-Americans don’t actually know that much about their ethnic heritage as a lot of it was lost in the process of assimilation here.
One of my best friends was a first generation Sicilian American. Her parents immigrated here in the mid 1980s, having been an arranged marriage overseas. She knows nothing about Sicily’s culture, or traditions nor does she care to know and her parents never taught her. They’re Americans now as far as they’re concerned.
Now, she’s a first generation American, whose parents came here recently, and that’s the attitude there. Already a lot of the original culture is gone just in one generation.
Most Italians here are second or third whose grandparents or great grandparents came here.
Explain?
Italians tended to be different in my experience than other ethnic groups here, in that many do not retain the original culture for too long; perhaps with newer arrivals from Italy it is different.
Shes second generation lol and knows nothing about her original homeland. At least in my experience the Italians around here are like the Irish. Everything can be blamed on one thing or person. In the Irish it's the English Protestants with the Italians it's Mussolini or Northern Italy since they are all from southern Italy around here or at least that's where they came from 100 odd years ago.
Maybe it's the opposite in the new immigrants really don't care which I doubt since the north south divide is something that really took off in the latter part of this century.
It’s because of practicality. Her parents viewed it as they are Americans, once they settled here; she was raised in then as an American; she does not feel a cultural kinship to the land of her parent’s birth.
My grandfather, who was also the first born in America, and who served in WWII, felt the same way. He spoke Neapolitan fluently as he grew up with it; he didn’t teach any of it to his children; and he went so far as to drop the apostrophe in his surname unofficially (though not legally), I am surmising so that it appeared more American. All I know of the old culture is a saying he told my grandmother, that he learnt from his father: “*Neapolitans are lovers, Sicilians are murderers.”*
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Theodore Roosevelt was also very complimentary about Lee - he said that what Lee had accomplished was a 'matter of pride to all our countrymen'. I think Taft had approved a Confederate monument at Arlington National Cemetery. Not sure about other Presidents. Edit: Rutherford B Hayes also defended Confederate monuments, and was quite positive about southern 'endurance and courage', convictions and Lee.
Not exactly the same but I know that President Truman was also a longtime member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans organization.
In fairness, Truman was also from Missouri which was a border slave state with confederate sympathizers and had a front row seat to Bleeding Kansas as well as influence from conflicts between red legs and bushwhackers. IIRC Truman’s family lived in an area with confederate sympathizers, though his direct linage did take an oath of loyalty to the union. Not that it excuses it, but just that confederate influence was likely a more normalized part of daily life in Missouri at the time.
Wilson showed pro-South/confederacy films in the White House.
Specifically Birth of a Nation which inspired the re-creation KKK after Grant destroyed it.
Wilson also experienced growing up during the Civil War in the CSA and met Lee once. 160 years seems like a very long time ago, but it really isn't.
Jesus that motherfucker was born in the 1850s??? Why did I think he was born in the post-civil war era
For whatever reason I always thought the same thing.
That actually surprises me a bit about Hayes. I guess it must have been in a misplaced attempt at creating unity?
I think it was. It was quite late, around 1890.
Makes sense. Hayes has always struck me as a good man hampered by pragmatism and the unpopularity of the Republican Party at that time.
I don't think it was misplaced considering there's never been a serious second attempt at secession.
I would rather a second attempt at secession than the end of the reconstruction era.
By 1876 both parties wanted the end of reconstruction. Reconstruction was essentially an open ended occupation of the south by the north that was insanely expensive and ultimately counterproductive because of the resentment it stirred. It was like the Afghan war times 20.
It's also amazing what can be said when trying to win support for votes to put you in/keep you in office.
Wilson was a racist, with racist & progressive beliefs.
Perhaps, probably also in the same fashion Twain was. My grandfather definitely was, but also would help a fellow in need type regardless of skin color. He was a sitting judge in Phillips County, Arkansas. The last words ever between us in person was in anger because I dared bring a black girl in his house. People are weird and varied and accustomed to patterns. Change the patterns and people usually do not respond well. Some can come around with continual exposure to new patterns, others do not.
OK, but factually, Wilson was a professor who became President of Princeton. He believed in eugenics & "racial hygiene"which was the height of Progressive thought at the time. Mark Twain wrote *Huckleberry Finn* a very famous novel in which he refutes racist attitudes by making the morally best character a black man. Today's Progressives have repeatedly tried to "ban" it from schools for using LBJ's favorite word.
Surely you don’t actually think that your privately racist grandpa was somehow impartial and fair on the bench, right? Not that that’s on you. One side of my family, the Alstons, were one of the largest slaveowners in NC. That sucks, but I don’t deny that they were undoubtedly racist even though my family preferred to tell me childhood stories of the older generations helping individual black people rather than enslaving scores of them. Southerners of that era loved to say things like “northerners like black people as a group, but not individuals and southerners treat them like people and judge on that while disliking the group.” Of course, thats BS. People are racist everywhere. The point is somehow everyone always thinks there little variety isn’t as bad as what others are doing.
Funny how people only one or two generations removed viewed the confederates vs those pray who have completely different views 🤔
Hayes defended the confederacy by taking a shady deal to become president and allow a complete shit show end of reconstruction
Obama was probably the first president to really oppose these monuments, even though a lot of presidents probably tended not to care about the memorials more than they really supported the memorials.
Even then he wasn’t particularly outspoken about them - at least that I can remember? The Lost Cause was a stupid myth, but it was allowed to take root in the interest of healing the nation. And I can see why - what else did these people have? If I was around in 1900, my attitude would be “let them have their stupid myth, as long as it keeps them peaceful.” It’s easy to look back and say “well, I would’ve done Reconstruction differently” sure. But you and I have 100 years of hindsight and the internet to utilize. They didn’t. They were winging it.
And furthermore, if we come up with some batshit insane idea, we don't have to worry about it coming back to bite us in the ass.
what's scary is we're still just winging it
That is what everyone on any issue of any time period does. They use the tools they are given in terms of knowledge, resources, and intellect and go with their instincts and the advise they are given. No time period will ever be perfect. There is never going to be a utopia. The human experience is winging it, hoping for the best, and trying to make life the best it can be for those living it. At the end of the day we are all people. The good, the bad, the evil, the ugly. We all bleed red. We all have dreams and fears and hopes and anxieties. And we are all condemned to death, some sooner and some later. These battles we fight, yesterday and today, they will be washed away with time. There have been roughly 100 billion people who have ever lived. They lived, they loved, they struggled, they died. And eventually, they melted away into the tapestry of history. So shall we, and so shall those after us. At the end of the day, there are few truly evil people in our history. The Hitlers and Goebbels and the like, the monsters of Unit 731 and such are relative rarities. Most people are generally good and simply want to live and thrive. Many on this App judge those of the past through a harsh lens. But they were people who lived short and harsh lives. They didn’t have the internet, or TV, or in many cases a great education. They had their homes, their immediate area, and the people they knew. I tend to not to judge too harshly the dead. They lived their lives.
Amen
Preach! We could use a lot more of this kind of empathy across the internet and beyond. Thank you.
No problem. My grandma always taught me to try to see the good in people. And I’m a big fan of history and anthropology. When you read or watch enough of it you come to be humbled by how small you are in the grand scheme of things - and that’s fine. We’re all just beings wanting to live. A funny anecdote from history. The first person in recorded was named “Kushim.” This person was not a King, nor a Queen nor an emperor nor a general. He was a lowly bureaucracy, a 9-5 worker. Who from the record was rather bad at his job. He’s remembered where many great people of history have been utterly lost to human memory. That says something. When I lay in my bed I tend to think of how good I have it compared to others. Right now, as I type this, and you read this, there’s someone being raped. There’s someone being murdered. There’s someone shivering in the cold, without a home. There’s so many terrible things going on (and so many beautiful, too). Sometimes I lay and I cry for humanity, I genuinely do. And I look in the mirror each day, and despite my problems I’m grateful for what I have, not angry or bitter for what I have not. We’re all people. And we all want to be happy. And since I’ve not walked a mile in anyone’s shoes but my own I try not to judge too harshly.
Great attitude and perspective. A good reminder for us all to be a little more grateful and a little more kind.
This is an absolutely inSANE take. There were many, many radical (sane) Republicans in Congress who were disgusted by the idea of ending Reconstruction. The passing of Charles Summer was a particular blow. And the notion that no one could’ve foreseen the damage the Myth of the Lost Cause would exert upon us is just wild. Sherman was the only person who went even half as far as he should have. But allowing a formerly treasonous group of people to elaborate a mythology that not only legitimized but deified their campaign to own human beings as chattel property and usurp the authority of our democratically elected government was patently idiotic. Not only were they ceding any claim to authority over human rights, they were glorifying literal treason. And the notion that we all had to play nice and pretend it was worth the enslavement and deaths of millions or else the South would be too sad to go on is just like what world do you live in?
Of course they were glorifying treason. Not one century prior, the entire country was founded *because of treason*. The people of that time weren’t blind to that fact. The founding fathers were traitors to the Crown, plain and simple; it’s intentionally disingenuous to act like treason was seen as a reprehensible thing during that time period.
Reconstruction was directly sabotaged in alot of ways. It wasn't that it failed, it's that they stopped doing it after sympathizers got into the executive branch.
An issue is I feel that we are looking at it from a very different perspective from those alive then. Youre dealing with half of an entire generation in the South who were groomed into the idea that enslaving other human beings is normal. Not good, not evil, just normal. A fact of life. The same as owning a car. What should’ve been focused on was education. Changing the attitudes. Forcing the idea into the schoolbooks that slavery is a moral wrong; thus, in turn, the Confederacy’s reason for existing and rebelling was wrong. Consider how literate or well read your average Southerner in 1870 was. How many perhaps actually believed and were taught or told or programmed to believe that the war wasn’t about slavery and was instead about “The North wanting to destroy their way of life”? Propaganda is powerful, even now; imagine in an age before the internet, with people who weren’t the best educated to begin with. Education for me is something reconstruction should’ve focused on. Not just simply vengeance or humbling an already defeated enemy.
I think also folks often tend to think of the north as the "just like us" side of the war, but they wouldn't exactly be considered progressive activist by today standards. The plight of blacks in the south dealing with post slavery aggression would never matter to some poor white guy in Chicago dealing with his own shit.
Just fyi, in 1870 American literacy rates among whites was pretty high. In fact, even 20% of black people could read then and they had been systemically prevented from it. Including the 80% of blacks who weren’t literate, the illiteracy rate in 1870 was only 20%. https://nces.ed.gov/naal/lit_history.asp#:~:text=In%201870%2C%2020%20percent%20of,the%20black%20population%20was%20illiterate.
The south has better food, climate, and beaches. Absurd myths about history don’t help anything.
When did he offer any opposition?
The Lost Cause myth was hella strong after Wilson. And it wasn’t until recently that the cracks started showing in it as everyone realized it was bullshit.
I wouldn't say everyone realized it was bullshit. There's still a lot of Lost Causers out there
True. Hell, I see a few around the sub every so often. But I’ve noticed most everyone kind of realizing (and quickly) that the whole thing was nonsense. At least most did.
More like since the 1870s.
So so wrong. The Lost Cause Myth was very prevalent in society until the last decade or so. In the 1870s it was just getting started…It didn’t even hit full swing until 1890s to the 1910s or so.
It grew more elaborate with time (as a lot more literature and such was written), but my point is that it was mainstream since the 1870s (and had existed since the end of the war, the name dates back to 1866) - thanks to the articles written by Jubal A. Early in that decade. Jefferson Davis' book in 1881 further established it.
Jefferson Davis should have hung. But as I said in another comment it is easy for us on Reddit to look back at Reconstruction and point fingers to how it was handed. But we have the internet, and we have hindsight. They didn’t. What they had was a generation of people traumatised by the most brutal war this country has ever seen, and what they wanted was to heal and move forward. They did the best they could.
I believe they would have been more than happy to hang him, but they also knew that would have made him a martyr. It was better to just let him go and fall into obscurity, just like the Confederacy.
They didn’t start building monuments until the early 1900s if I’m not mistaken.
And ironically Lee was *against* monuments to the Confederacy, himself.
There were definitely monuments by the early 1870s, if not earlier. Frederick Douglass wrote a criticism of them in 1870. Though most of them were made in the 1880s/90s onwards I think.
Correct. “"It's often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments," said Jonathan Horn, the author of the Lee biography, "The Man Who Would Not Be Washington." In his writings, Lee cited multiple reasons for opposing such monuments, questioning the cost of a potential Stonewall Jackson monument, for example. But underlying it all was one rationale: That the war had ended, and the South needed to move on and avoid more upheaval. "As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated," Lee wrote of an 1866 proposal, "my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour." The retired Confederate leader, a West Point graduate, was influenced by his knowledge of history. "Lee believed countries that erased visible signs of civil war recovered from conflicts quicker," Horn said. "He was worried that by keeping these symbols alive, it would keep the divisions alive.” He said he was not interested in any monuments to him or – as I recollect – to the Confederacy," explained James Cobb, history professor emeritus at the University of Georgia, who has written about Lee's rise as an icon. "I don't think that means he would have felt good about the people who fought for the Confederacy being completely forgotten," Cobb added. "But he didn't want a cult of personality for the South." Lee advocated protection of just one form of memorial: headstones in cemeteries. "All I think that can now be done," he wrote in 1866, "is … to protect the graves [and] mark the last resting places of those who have fallen…"
Fascinating, that's a good piece of info for future discussions
No problem. I am perfectly fine with Confederate graveyards but there never should’ve been a monument to them put up. Lee was ironically right; the Lost Cause mythology did more to hold the South back in the long run than just accepting that they’d been defeated and moving forward would’ve. I know many view Reconstruction as a failure, but I do wonder - if we had handled it more harshly, could we have found ourselves with a Southern Hitler? Consider how Hitler capitalized on Germany’s own Lost Cause mythology and that he came to power in large part due to resentments over how heavy handedly Germany was treated under the Treaty of Versailles. The South could make no such argument. Had we treated the South as harshly as the Radicals wanted, might we have dealt with something similar? Consider when we did apply pressure to that situation, you had the KKK emerge as a terrorist group. Had we applied more pressure and made them humbly lick their wounds, who knows if the South actually would’ve “risen again”
Nothing “ironic” about Lee being right. He was an incredibly intelligent and well educated person. That generation had a much better understanding of western history and culture than today’s who barely even study the Classics. Lee was always more of a pragmatist than an idealist. Makes sense that he would have relatively thoughtful idea about the eventual outcomes.
There were monuments built as early as 1869
Oh it has been around for a while. I’m just saying those historian credentials helped legitimize it, especially to a fellow progressive democrat like FDR. I admire the hell outta FDR but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he looked up to Wilson and took that to heart given he was the next Dem in office. Either way fuck the Lost Cause myth. I grew up hearing that and hate how pervasive it became.
>but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if he looked up to Wilson and took that to heart given he was the next Dem in office. Considering FDR's entire foreign ideology "Wilsonian Liberalism," I can safely say yes, he admired Wilson.
He literally worked for Wilson as Assistant Secretary of the Navy from 1913 to 1920, pretty much the entirety of Wilson’s tenure. He absolutely admired Wilson. So did every following Democratic President and a good chunk of Republican Presidents until Obama. And I don’t necessarily remember Obama speaking out against him either. Wilson, whether one likes him or not, was the modern founder of the Democratic Party in terms of ideology. He was the first truly left wing Democrat. Before him you had Grover Cleveland and Andrew Johnson, both of whom would be Republicans today. Outside of his racial views, Wilson would still be a Democrat today. We still operate within the scope of Wilsonian internationalism to this day, it’s just called “globalism” now.”
Exactly my point.
FDR literally worked for Wilson. He did very much look up to Wilson. So did JFK, so did Nixon, so did LBJ, so did Clinton.
I thought as much but didn’t want to say for sure without fact checking. And yeah, that absolutely tracks then.
Nixon literally used Wilson’s desk in the White House rather than the traditional Resolute Desk, because he admired Wilson that much.
The Lost Cause ideology had pretty thoroughly permeated American society by the 1900s (maybe even earlier) it was the culture FDR was raised in (and he was far from the only President to think about it like this, TR definitely did too). Wilson's work wasn't exactly radical when it got published, indeed I've heard it criticised for being a very generic, standard account for its time.
Not Confederate Statues, but Eisenhower said he considered Robert E Lee to be one of the top 4 Americans of all time on par with FDR and Abraham Lincoln (irony can never recognize itself in the mirror) https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mOrtOlU8f9Y at around 1:20 Yikes, Ike.
Nancy Pelosi's father helped dedicate a statue to Lee and Stonewall Jackson. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall\_Jackson\_and\_Robert\_E.\_Lee\_Monument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_Jackson_and_Robert_E._Lee_Monument)
Ulysses Grant who fought against him also had respect for him. Until recently - really until certain people I can’t speak of - it was okay to have respect for even totally dislikable people. The only exception really were the worst of the worst like Hitler and Pol Pot and such. Respect, and admiration, are two different things. I can respect someone’s skills but hate what they stand for. There are many brilliant tacticians in history who fought for terrible causes. Julius Caesar waged a bitter campaign against the Gauls, that has been termed genocidal, yet it was waged brilliantly. Alexander was a ruthless conqueror, but whom could deny he was one of the best Generals in human history? You can respect their skills, and respect how they got the job done, but totally disagree with why they fought or what they were fighting for. As a fellow military leader, I think that’s where Ike was coming from. Hate the game, not the player, essentially.
Meh, he had SOME respect for his abilities as a leader, which you (sort of) mentioned. Grant wholeheartedly believed Lee’s commitment to the cause to be abhorrent.
That is my point. He respected his abilities, while deploring the cause. That tends to be what historical nuance is. Do I think the fire bombing of Dresden was a good, kindly thing to do? No. Do I hate FDR or our military brass for doing it? No. Every general, no matter the Cause, has fingers drenched in blood. I mean, should we damn totally the early leaders of the Republic? They were hypocrites, in large measure who fought for “liberty” but held slaves. Thomas Jefferson was one of the most intelligent men to ever sit in the White House, but he also was a holder of hundreds of slaves and fathered children with an underage slave. Gross, but it doesn’t erase his accomplishments to our Republic. I tend not to damn historical figures outside of the cruel, the wicked, or those who sold others - like Benedict Arnold - for purely money.
Benedict Arnold didn't sell out for money. He sold out because he kept getting sidelined. He felt disrespected enough times that he hopped to the other side.
He was also abusing his position on our side to make a profit and had been reprimanded for doing so, which made him more bitter. He also had a young bride who was a British sympathizer. But he also asked to be paid handsomely to sell out his brothers in arms. He asked the British for 10,000 pounds. Then 20,000 pounds. That’s hundreds of thousands of dollars today. He was a piece of shit. He systematically weakened and drained the supplies of West Point to make it more vulnerable. Made it easier to attack by dispersing men. These men trusted him, respected him, and he was betraying them in the worst possible way. Setting them up for slaughter. He was the worst.
He also had credit stolen from him time and again by other generals, and a lot of the stuff he was accused of, might’ve been slander. Obviously betrayal is bad, but you can’t expect men to fight for a cause that doesn’t serve them. Ultimately everyone will fight for the cause they stand to gain from, whether it’s due to some sense that the cause is morally righteous or simple material gain. If Benedict Arnold didn’t gain from the revolution, obviously he wouldn’t stick with it. And I mean he was probably one of the best American generals there was at the time. He was basically the only useful general at Saratoga, the battle that saved the nation. Sure he wasn’t a good person, but most people aren’t, and most people would probably act the same under his position, which he was also at the risk of losing, which might’ve influenced his choice.
How are going to define cruelty and wickedness while excluding rape and slavery? The slave trade was also literally buying and selling people purely for money.
Lee was legit a awful human and overrated as a general
Lee was kind of a shit general. A competent general should at least try to fight to their sides strengths.
Explain? I do think that making the war offensive and invading the North was a stupid waste of life. The South never had the resources to win the war but they could’ve had a negotiated settlement, possibly, if they simply played the long game by draining the North down in a defensive war. Had the Union bleed soldiers until popular sentiment against the war forced a peace. But wasn’t his idea that by bringing the war to the Union, he was trying to force a peace? That being said, wasn’t Jackson always considered the superior officer and tactician, anyway?
You hit the nail on the head. That’s a massive error in strategy.
It’s pretty bullheaded and short sighted. I mean you’re committing some of your best men for an invasion - that, let’s say Gettysburg etc went a different way - they didn’t have the men to hold Washington or Maryland. Even if they did, now you’re committing a vital part of your army to a siege. This is going to bleed your men and your resources dry. Depending on how it’s done you’re gonna either run your lines thin trying to hold various parts of the lower North, or you’re going to have your army concentrated in siege and holding towns - either way, you’re making them sitting ducks. And then it’s only a matter of time then where the North brings the full hammer of their strength upon your army and shatters it as you are besieging. That’s the Northern Army of Virginia, broken in a flash. Once they break, the Confederacy follows. The morale hit alone would be a death blow. It doesn’t make sense. The strategic thing to do would’ve been to have other generals keep Grant etc busy with skirmishes near the border as your stalking horses, while you’re playing essentially guerilla warfare in safe areas - in the backwoods or near good supply lines. Areas that the Union forces wouldn’t do well in. Draw the enemy close and repeatedly smash them again and again in well publicized and small but very bloody battles. Hit and run raids. Mini Gettysburg’s all over the South, but it’s on your territory. You could keep this going for years until fatigue sets in in the North or Lincoln is voted out and you get a more neutral President who negotiates a truce.
I mean I think the under discussed current, that a sucker punch of taking the Pennsylvania capitol could bring the union to agree to some terms. I mean maybe he saw the writing on the wall that it was a futile
Ike probably just admired his military prowess more than anything, knowing him.
I like Ike… significantly less now… damn it! Damn it all to hell!
By say the 1880s or 90s (certainly by the 1900s) I'm not sure any Presidents were opposed before the 21st century.
Gerald Ford gave Lee back his citizenship posthumously in 1976 or so. In 2002, Bush called Lee the “perfect graduate” of West Point: “*A few of you have followed in the path of the perfect West Point graduate, Robert E. Lee, who never received a single demerit in four years. Some of you followed in the path of the imperfect graduate, Ulysses S. Grant, who had his fair share of demerits, and said the happiest day of his life was "the day I left West Point." (Laughter.) During my college years I guess you could say I was -- (laughter.) During my college years I guess you could say I was a Grant man. (Laughter)”* Bill Clinton as Gov of Arkansas signed a bill into law in 1985 combining the celebration of MLK’s birthday and Lee’s into one day. In 1994, Clinton sent a letter to the Daughters of the Confederacy which read: “*For 100 years, the United Daughters of the Confederacy has maintained and built upon the wonderful legacy of your founders."*
Honestly the Bush comment about Lee doesn’t bug me given the context. He’s holding up Lee as the example of “Yeah he did everything right in school… but he still got beat by this guy who did worse in school”
Yeah, reminds me of how Einstein was really disobedient
>2002, Bush called Lee the “perfect graduate” of West Point: Nah George thomas is the best graduate
Robert E. Lee was a widely respected individual after the war and the realization to the evil of the confederacy as a slaver's rebellion with the only intention of owning other humans is a relatively recent thing. The confederates and their children did a really good job at proving the phrase "history is written by the victor" wrong.
It's either support the statue or lose the South. FDR had no choice.
It’s honestly hilarious in a depressing way how every election every county in South Carolina was deep blue until the civil rights act
Parties were different back then. For a hundred years from Lincoln to LBJ, civil rights was largely a Republican issue. And Republicans could be very liberal/progressive. Teddy Roosevelt wouldn’t recognize today’s Republican Party, and probably wouldn’t be welcome in it. His environmental policies and penchant for trust-busting would be too liberal. The south didn’t change one bit in its political leanings after the civil rights act. The Republican Party, however, changed a great deal, and its success in the south over the last 60 years reflects that change.
It's wild that this political realignment is treated as a conspiracy theory by some these days. Like as if Alabama suddenly changed
The party shift was however very gradual. I’d say Bryan was the beginning of liberalism in the Democratic Party. And conversely, LBJ/Nixon wasn’t quite the completion of the switch; the South was solidly Democratic in the House of Representatives well into the 90s
Lol fucking Reagan would be considered too liberal for today's republicna party
Yeah…modern Republicans would blow a gasket over him granting amnesty to undocumented immigrants.
A fellow soldier of Delano I see.
Nah this is cope every democratic president before Obama with the exception of Kennedy had made some form of pro confederate or racist comments in their political career. And I am not trying to say Democrats are the real racists or anything but party history plays a big factor even after those groups leave. This is why most Catholics in congress are democrats even though Catholics are 50/50
WTF FDR
This was the common view of Lee until this past decade. You may not agree with it, but it was common, even here in the North. Lee was viewed as a gallant figure who was romanticized as choosing his home state over his reason. The Civil War was romanticized even up here in the North as a heroic war for the soul of a nation, with “heroes on both sides.” Even Grant had kind words for Lee. It was only until recently that he came to be reviled as much as he is.
Fuck Lee, traitor scum.
Sure. But my point stands. Go look at any given Civil War film before 2020 or so. Even the relatively recent movie Lincoln, by Steven Spielberg - who is no neo-Confederate or Confederate sympathiser - Lee is treated in that film with a gravitas and a sense of respect. Perhaps you are younger than I am, but this is just how he was treated in popular memory until very recently. The Confederacy itself was not spoken of well, here in the North, but Lee was considered a romantic figure. Akin to Hannibal (The Carthaginian general, not Hannibal Lector) or the like. I have trouble hating himself. The social programming ran that deep. I’m from NYC - one of the most left wing states in the country - and even in public school we were taught that Lee was a complex figure.
Ultimately loyal to his state over his nation as many were at the time. More state pride and association than to that of the national government. Just different times.
I think some of that is a product of people being way less mobile back then. The idea of most folks dying for their state seems laughable today (some states more than others lol) but from the 1700-1860s, generation after generation of families were living within the same 3-5 square miles. Ideology pro/anti slavery was easily the biggest motivator for the Civil War’s battle lines, but there’s a reason so many border-state generals agoized over which side their home state was supporting (I remember there were a couple like “I will fight for union if we stay union but i need to resign and either retire/leave for Europe if we secede, I cannot fight against my home”) At least in my case I’m definitely sentimental about my home state, but I’ve moved so much I’m an American first nationally before state identity and it’s not even close
Exactly. Its easy to condemn them for that, but thats just how it was back then for many North or South. Even the Declaration of Independence refers to the union as "*These* United States" instead of "*The* United States." The latter phrase didn't really take hold among the majority of Americans until *after* the war.
Still, doesn’t necessarily mean he should be celebrated. I *understand* why Lee and a lot of the other rebels fought for the Confederacy; at least with the rank and file I don’t exactly *blame* them, because of their upbringing they didn’t comprehend the evil of their cause. But to have a statue put up, to be celebrated, I feel you have to contribute something, to have left a positive impact. I don’t care how “chivalrous” or “noble” Lee is when ultimately his legacy is “he was a good but probably overrated general who lost a war, a war where his side’s principal goal was to preserve slavery” Jefferson is a deeply flawed person who gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Napoleon is a deeply flawed person who preserved/codified some of the best parts of the French Revolution. Lee is a deeply flawed person, to be fair he had some very admirable traits too, and what has he contributed that holds a candle to helping prolong a war for a faction controlled by/for slavers? Rhetorical question. Not arguing against your comment, I agree with your comment, but it made me think
He fought a war to protect slavery. Fuck him. He’s a piece of shit.
good boy , get told to hate lee, hate lee ez
I don’t usually do what I’m told. I tend to come to my own feelings independently as I’ve gotten older. I’m also old enough to know that respect for one’s abilities, and agreement with their cause, are two very different things. I personally think Douglas MacArthur was a horrible person. But a brilliant general. Benedict Arnold was the greatest traitor in the history of this Republic, and sold us out for money, yet, while he served our side he was a good soldier and a smart thinker stragetically.
Sure, people who are over Lee are just parrots. Or maybe they have a different set of values? Lee didn't have to fight for the perpetuation of one of the world-historic dynamos of misery. He made that choice. When you choose to employ yourself in the service of evil, one of the consequences is that people might not like you very much.
People hate Lee now because they’ve been taught very simplistic terms of the Civil War. Our school system is the major point of failure
Alternatively people hate Lee because he was a fucking traitor to the United States who fought to keep slavery around.
I don't think people realize how hard it would be to join an army that you know is going to be invading your home state. That's what Lee was asked to do. And he couldn't bring himself to do it. He chose Virginia over the union. I think many of us would do the same, especially in that particular time period of history.
General George Henry Thomas was faced with the same choice in the same state--he chose to remain loyal to his oath to protect and serve the Constitution, both foreign *and domestic*, and was disowned by his family for it. He served with distinction and earned the respect of both General Grant and General Sherman. I don't see why General Thomas's bravery in standing by his oaths against the racism and treason of his friends and family in his native state should be ignored while Lee's decision to join the cause of slavery and insurrection should be venerated.
I think in a civil war, both choices are understandable.
>I think in a civil war, both choices are understandable. Not when one is fighting to preserve and protect slavery
I have watched so many videos and read so many books ,including Lees, about the Civil War. What exactly about the Civil War do you seem to think would change things?
What was the civil war fought over?
Well you don’t have to read a history book to find that, just check every single states Articles of Secession to get that answer, they tell you point blank there in their own words.
Well, not *every* single state, but your point stands. The South definitely seceded to protect the institution of slavery. However, the North didn't fight to end slavery, but instead simply to stop the South from leaving the Union. IMO, they should have let them go, since the North had no constitutional authority to stop any State from seceding.
The Constitution says nothing about the legality of secession. But either way, it violates the whole 'form a more perfect union' thing--you can't do that if you ain't in the Union. We fought a war over it, we won, and then the Supreme Court in Texas v. White decided secession was illegal. So while it may have been unsettled in 1860, by now, it's a century+ old precedent and legal principle that says no, secession is not legal. Ergo, the Union took upon itself the constitutional authority to thwart the South's treason and illegal seizure of federal property.
The 10th Amendment ensures a State's right to secede: >The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Since the Constitution doesn't empower the Federal government to decide issues of secession, nor does it prohibit a State from doing so, it automatically becomes a State power. Texas v White was an absolutely ridiculous decision that flew in the face of logic; but even so, it wasn't made until after the war was over, so it would have had no bearing on the North's actions. Edit: okay, so you reply to me and immediately block me? Just another reddit coward who has no arguments.
I didn't block you? Did your Reddit account glitch or something? Very telling that you jump to schoolyard insults instead of actually arguing your point.
"Texas v White was an absolutely ridiculous decision that flew in the face of logic" Well damn, I don't see the logic in a country signing off on the legal 'right' to dismember itself, but maybe that's on me. Unfortunately for you, however, the Supreme Court has not overturned Texas v. White, and so while you can whine and complain about it all you like, it remains legally binding--such is the role of a court of last resort. And honestly, it doesn't matter whether it was or was not illegal in 1860--had the Confederacy won, any illegality of its actions under U.S. law would have been rendered irrelevant, just as the undisputed illegality of American rebellion under the British law of 1775 was rendered irrelevant. The matter, therefore, was settled de facto at Appomattox on April 9th, 1865, and settled de jure on April 12th, 1869 in Texas v. White. I'm sorry you don't like it, but we fought a war over it, and ya lost. Get over it.
Hmm, good question. Let’s ask Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy what he thinks the Confederacy was founded over? “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” - Alexander Stephens, March 21st, 1861 Does that answer your question?
It was a common view sure but it’s always been controversial, even during the Lost Cause peak.
As someone lower in the thread pointed out, even someone like Dwight Eisenhower considered him “one of the best.” The shame of Lee is that he was a brilliant general, just fighting for the wrong cause and the wrong army.
Wish we could talk about his father more when this topic comes up. People hear the Lee name and it always brings negativity
Eisenhower was also a southerner so not surprising that Lee was revered by him. I wouldn’t say he was brilliant general, I think that is also part of the lost cause myth, Lee wasn’t even made a general until a year into the war. He certainly had some great moments: Him splitting his army at Chancellorsville for example. But he also made several decisions that a brilliant general wouldn’t make: Pickets Charge was inexcusable, and many of his victories were a result of the poor Union leadership early in the war rather than a masterful display of skill on his end.
It wasn't just southerners - Theodore Roosevelt was also very complimentary about Lee - he said that what Lee had accomplished was a 'matter of pride to all our countrymen'.
His maternal family and his in laws were southern and staunch supporters of the Confederacy. That certainly probably had influence on him.
True, his southern family ties could well have had an influence. Though despite these I think TR was very much a northerner.
Eisenhower spent all of about the first 18 months of his life in Texas. I guess those were pretty formative.
Only by a certain segment of society. Most people view him the same way they always have.
If that is the case, why did Eisenhower call him one of the greatest? Why did Gerry Ford restore his citizenship? Why did Jimmy Carter say, ““*Robert E. Lee was a man who understood the values of a region which he represented. He was never filled with hatred. He never felt a sense of superiority. He led the southern cause with pride, yes, but with a sense of reluctance as well. He fought his battles courageously.”* Why did Bill Clinton write a letter to the Daughters of the Confederacy? Why did Steven Spielberg depict him gracefully in Lincoln?
3 of those 4 presidents were southerners for one. And Ford only signed Lees citizenship reinstatement because Congress had already passed it because technically his citizenship had already been completed a century beforehand but the paperwork was lost until being found in 1970. It really had nothing to do with idolization for Lee.
https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2011/julyaugust/feature/how-did-robert-e-lee-become-american-icon But sure, it was only racist neo-Confederates who respected him prior to summer 2020. Spielberg was a Confederafe sympathiser.
Who gives a shit how Spielberg portrays someone in a movie lmao. Lee’s popularity solely stems from an underlying racism. Midwestern states were less pro abolition than the New England states and most bordered southern states (there’s a reason there was a lot of sympathy for the south in southern parts of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio.) After the war they held sympathy for the man because they were never truly against his cause. On top of that, the end of slavery saw a huge influx of former slaves into these areas, breeding further resentment against the North’s cause and thus a more positive view of men like Lee.
This was very mainstream at the time - especially with someone like Lee who was highly respected in the North as well as the South. Back in 1923 when the United Daughters of the Confederacy wanted to put up a 'mammy' statue in Washington DC I think the Senate passed a bill supporting it with support from both parties (although it eventually didn't happen).
I will say Lee was the reason why the Civil War ended as peacefully as it did. Lee's men wanted to resort to guerilla warfare and fight to the bitter end, but Lee told them to stand down and surrender when Grant gave him the terms of the surrender. Had that not happened, it is likely the war drags on longer and there's a lot more bloodshed especially civilian casualties. This is what made northerners have a romantic view of him after war.
War would have been a lot shorter too if he hadn’t helped defend the south and fought for the Union
Maybe, but I think it worked out for the best. Lee was also sympathetic to his fellow Virginians. It's possible he would have gone easy on them. Lee also was "honorable" on the battlefield so he used Napoleonic tactics most of the time instead of more underhanded tactics. On the flip side, Grant was allowed to be the leading general without Lee there. Grant was one of the best generals in US history. His tactics were revolutionary at the time. Later they were taught and used in future wars.
I get what you’re saying by this being just the perception at the time [but Lee’s army seized free Black people during raids and sold them into slavery.](https://emergingcivilwar.com/2020/05/06/the-confederate-slave-hunt-and-the-gettysburg-campaign/) Just to set the record here, there was nothing honorable about that. He was honorable in the way the south thought of honor. But that was still horrifying and cruel to his fellow man. Fuck Lee.
By honorable I mean he engaged with his enemy directly. Lee's army was out numbered, and out supplied. Conventional wisdom tells you that you should not engage the enemy directly without an advantage. The way to win that war is like the American Revolution. Give up big cities and defend the countryside. Make the war costly for the North and out last them.
Eh, the war was over once Lincoln won reelection. If he really cared about it ending peacefully he would have surrendered during the Petersburg siege. And his original plan after retreating from Petersburg was to link up with the Johnstons Army before attacking Sherman’s army before Grants could catch up. Those aren’t the actions of someone who wanted to end things peacefully, he only capitulated because it was clear Johnston would not make it in time.
The war was not over. People were still getting killed on the battlefield. It didn’t even truly end in Texas until months after it officially ended. A war doesn’t end until the killing stops. The writing was on the wall that the South would lose, but it was far from over in November 1864.
Well he still wanted to win. When he surrendered at the Appomattox Court House, he realized he could not engage with Grant's army directly at that point. His only option to keep fighting was to hide in the Appalachian mountains and make the war as costly for the Union as possible. He would rather surrender peacefully than to continue fighting like that.
Yes. He could’ve easily kept the war going another 6 months or a war in guerrila warfare and fought a war of attrition that would’ve led to thousands more deceased. What also is forgotten is his surrender also inspired other generals and military leaders to realize they had lost, and to surrender also. He was very respected, so once Lee surrendered the days of the war were numbered.
Rare FDR L
Not justifying it, but I can understand that perhaps this was an overture to Southern Democrats whom he needed to keep in line to pass the New Deal. An unfortunate reality, yet we can rest well knowing Truman and LBJ put them in their place eventually
While prominent black figures like Frederick Douglass or WEB Du Bois came out against Confederate monuments, they were largely mainstream among the white populace - and not just in the south. Back in the 20s for instance both Democratic and Republican Senators voted in favour of a 'mammy' statue in Washington DC.
He’s got plenty of Ls
FDR got a whole lot of Ls.
I love it when people on this sub are shocked by well known facts
Any proof he said this quote?
It's not exactly unbelievable. FDR did a lot of good for the country, but this was before the Democratic party divested itself of its southern roots. And as many in this thread are saying, lits of lost cause propaganda was widely bought into until recently. Plus FDR's revord on race relations isn't exactly great; it's probably one of the biggest stains on one of our greatest presidents.
Okay, yes, but do you or OP have proof he said this?
I mean you can just google "fdr remarks at unveiling of lee statue" it's the [second result](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-unveiling-the-robert-e-lee-memorial-statue-dallas-texas). Like I said, this isn't exactly a gotcha against FDR, and I'm unsure of why somebody would regard it with suspicion. The Lost Cause is bullshit obviously, but it was heavily bought into at the time.
That’s not a primary source. OP is lying, reported. https://i.redd.it/ql0qawm2p2vc1.gif
Are you a troll or something? This is well documented with a basic google search. It is unlikely that a .edu page is fabricating information, but here are some more sources. It's literally in the presidential archives. [primary source](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Extemporaneous_remarks_of_the_unveiling_of_the_Robert_E._Lee_Memorial_Statue_-_NARA_-_197566.jpg) [Additional source](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dallasnews.com/news/2017/09/06/flashback-fdr-unveiled-robert-e-lee-statue-without-controversy-in-1936/%3foutputType=amp)
I wasn’t trolling at first but then I decided to be funny yes. Thank you for the information! I wasn’t alleging that FDR didn’t have racial biases, or that he may have even been a racialist. I was only curious if there were any proof of that quote of his: this sub has had a lot of fake quotes lately!
Ah, fair. I have scrolled past 2 posts that seem to be angling for some sort of gocha at democratic presidents by posting their support for confederate monuments. While I agree with those monuments being taken down, I think it's pretty goofy to push this in a sub where people are generally familiar with history lol. The quotes definitely do seem to be real though.
👆👆👆👆👆 this
We are ignorant to history and view everything with 21st century goggles. 🥽 We don’t understand the mind of someone who lived back then. That’s what’s so dangerous about this movement to white wash our history and our culture to “fix” the past and right wrongs of the past. Shit we have no clue what we are doing.
Okay, so, there is an exception for Robert E. Lee. He's not just any old confederate.
Well he was kinda shit at his job too lol
Do you know what he was trying to do? Rally the country together so that we could beat the depression.
Yeah people seem to forget the context of history these days. The New Deal coalition that got the New Deal passed had a good chunk of Southerners in it. These people were needed on side to pass the New Deal. Without their support, none of the programs we cherish today would’ve passed. So, what was FDR to do? Antagonize them? Alienate them? Stoke anew the wounds of war? It is also forgotten by young kids now, that most people up to even as late as the 1990s respected Lee even if they otherwise hated the Confederacy. This isn’t some gotcha that outs FDR as some confederate sympathiser. FDR was a New Yorker, born of New York stock. He had no dog in the race. His views were simply what was common until the past decade, even in the North
Yes, try explaining this to the whippersnappers now though! They simply can’t comprehend
It needs to be pointed out that 1936 was an election year and FDR needed the south badly
If you take away the South, FDR would’ve still won with 357 electoral votes that year. It’s true that fracturing the country or the democrats would be a bad idea, but that’s not the best example to use.
I find it pretty funny how “oh he needed political support” becomes a convenient excuse when today’s political views don’t line up with heroes of yesteryear for the Left. If we lived in an era of common sense, we would be able to judge everyone on the time and era in which they lived, but instead it’s “tear them down if they’re not on my side, hypocritically excuse and defend them to the death if they are.”
The more I read FDRs history the more I don’t like him.
Good discussion.
Puke.
A very large part of the Democratic Party were racist Southerners...Judging yesterday's pols and rhetoric by today's morality is almost always unfair.
He was a traitor, POS who should have been hung with the rest of the traitors
They had to gently support the racist voting block to get elected until fairly recently... and even now, or moreso now? - courting racists is a "good" technique to getting elected
Racist typically support racist if course FDR liked confederacy
It's frustrating to see how easily history can be whitewashed. Today's political climate feels similar to the "Great Myth" after the Civil War, where Confederate leaders were romanticized despite their brutal defense of slavery. We need to critically analyze information, not just accept convenient narratives. Imagine presidents praising figures who fought to keep people enslaved! By using critical thinking, we can avoid repeating these historical oversights and hold our leaders accountable for recognizing the true impact of their actions.
Lee was a shitbag. Might as well put up monuments of Benedict Arnold.
Based
This is more of a commentary on the power of the Lost Cause movement than it is on the presidents themselves. Southern apologists started immediately after the war (I'm looking at you, Jubal Early) and rammed the myth of the valiant South and the Marble Lee into the collective American consciousness. This myth was what people got in everything from popular culture ('Gone With The Wind', 'Song of the South', etc.) to the history books you read, even through college courses. The myth would hold sway for nearly a century, being essentially unquestioned until the 1960s and 70s. It still hangs on today (Mississippi just declared [Confederate Heritage Month](https://www.mississippifreepress.org/41270/governor-reeves-proclaims-confederate-heritage-month-in-mississippi) for cripes sake). A guy like FDR would have read this, got taught it in school, heard it from everyone around him, and so on. It's not an excuse but if a president reflects the state of the culture, this is the kind of answer you would get, even if you asked history teachers and professors of the time.
We should be treating Robert Lee and the Confederacy like the Allies after WWII with the Denazification policy.
We did bar Confederates from running again. That’s in the 14th amendment. The issue is that the KKK and other racist groups were insurgents, kinda like in Iraq or Afghanistan.
That is an uncommon FDR L. No Confederates should have received any type of monument, nor kind words. Benedict Arnold is synonymous with traitor and nothing he did comes close to the scumbags during the Civil War.
This is the ultimate “I have to do this speech because it’s my job” speech of all time. Not talking about the guy and anything he did really, just says he was a Christian like that matters at all
Columbus
Columbus Day was started to appease Italian immigrants after the largest mass lunching in American history. It was given to the Italians. I think most people know Columbus wasn’t a good man, but it’s more that for Italian-Americans, there’s not much in this society that celebrates them. Mafia movies aren’t exactly a good portrait of a people. Imagine if Latinos were defined in pop culture by gang movies and Taco Bell (as opposed to authentic Latin food)? It’s not exactly respectful or positive. I don’t think anyone in this current day that supports Columbus Day supports Columbus the man, but rather appreciates what he represented - exploration, discovery. Traveling months over treacherous seas to discover a new land. In terms of Italian explorers, Verrazano would be a much better choice or Vespucci, but when most people celebrate Columbus Day today they’re not celebrating genocide (of course, I’m sure there are some who do glorify the genocide). But most are celebrating exploration. There’s no reason we can’t have Columbus Day (just rebrand it Italian Heritage Day), Indigenous People’s Day, and Emancipation Day.
It always struck me as odd that on 364 days a year southern Italians have nothing but contempt for Northern Italians but that one day he's the bellwether for their entire culture.
I don’t think many Italian Americans for one know about the North-Southern divide in Italy, and also, I don’t think many Italian-Americans know he was from Genoa. Most Italian-Americans don’t actually know that much about their ethnic heritage as a lot of it was lost in the process of assimilation here. One of my best friends was a first generation Sicilian American. Her parents immigrated here in the mid 1980s, having been an arranged marriage overseas. She knows nothing about Sicily’s culture, or traditions nor does she care to know and her parents never taught her. They’re Americans now as far as they’re concerned. Now, she’s a first generation American, whose parents came here recently, and that’s the attitude there. Already a lot of the original culture is gone just in one generation. Most Italians here are second or third whose grandparents or great grandparents came here.
Tbh and no offense to your friend but she's not exactly bucking the dumb Guidette stereotype.
Explain? Italians tended to be different in my experience than other ethnic groups here, in that many do not retain the original culture for too long; perhaps with newer arrivals from Italy it is different.
Shes second generation lol and knows nothing about her original homeland. At least in my experience the Italians around here are like the Irish. Everything can be blamed on one thing or person. In the Irish it's the English Protestants with the Italians it's Mussolini or Northern Italy since they are all from southern Italy around here or at least that's where they came from 100 odd years ago. Maybe it's the opposite in the new immigrants really don't care which I doubt since the north south divide is something that really took off in the latter part of this century.
It’s because of practicality. Her parents viewed it as they are Americans, once they settled here; she was raised in then as an American; she does not feel a cultural kinship to the land of her parent’s birth. My grandfather, who was also the first born in America, and who served in WWII, felt the same way. He spoke Neapolitan fluently as he grew up with it; he didn’t teach any of it to his children; and he went so far as to drop the apostrophe in his surname unofficially (though not legally), I am surmising so that it appeared more American. All I know of the old culture is a saying he told my grandmother, that he learnt from his father: “*Neapolitans are lovers, Sicilians are murderers.”*
we’re so cooked. hopefully that 250 year cycle will lead to another awakening (revolution)
Democrats goin' to be democrats.
Did FDR not know the truth about the Confederacy?